The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #494]

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? So far, we have about 22 months of nothingness, and then the owner of this arena dumps the 'Hyksos' over the fence.

How does this make sense in your mind? Okay? So, it has been 22 months and there has been no evidence provided, but now there has, and I am attempting to determine what in the world the amount of time would have to do with it? What is your point? Next, why do you refer to it as "being dumped over the fence"? I cannot see where any of your complaints matter in the least. Either the Hyksos are evidence of an exodus, or they do not matter, and the amount of time it has taken for one to bring them into the conversation does not equal "dumping it over the fence". I can tell you this. I pretty much demonstrated how the Hyksos are relevant to this conversation in my last post. So then, you can either deal with the facts and evidence you have been presented, or you can continue to complain about the time lapse which has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And now you wish to jump on the bandwagon.

No, you are incorrect here. I had no interest whatsoever in this topic, and my first post here demonstrates that I had nothing to say on the topic. Rather, I read what otseng had to say, and understood it to be relevant, and noticed you were avoiding having to deal with the evidence. I then simply communicated to otseng, that there are folks who are not really interested in the evidence. You could of, and should have left it at that, and all would have been fine, but you decided to engage me, and I was forced at that time to look into the evidence myself, and in that short amount of time, I was able to demonstrate that the Hyksos are extremely relevant to this conversation.

1) If the "Hyksos" were relevant, I certainly would not have had to wait almost 2 years to receive such a reply, being this topic has had ample exposure.

There is no way you can make this make sense in your mind. Of course, I have to consider the fact that we are dealing with one who freely admits to being convinced that a dead man rose from the grave with no facts and evidence in support. Seriously, you cannot even believe that the time frame has any relevance as to whether the argument applies. Because I can assure you that the Hyksos are indeed relevant even though you had to wait almost 2 years.

2) Since you are educated, I find it funny you never heard of them, and the alleged possibility of their relevance, which instead means that maybe they are not nearly as relevant as you may now wish for them to be?

I can tell you this for certain. You did not get the idea I was educated from me, because I would have never made such a claim because it would be impossible for me to make such a claim. Since this is the case, it would explain very well why I have never heard of the Hyksos. However, even though I have not heard of the Hyksos, it did not take me very long to demonstrate they are indeed relevant to this conversation, and they have been relevant for a very long time, even over these past two years, even though you and I were unaware of the Hyksos. The point is, even if we are unaware does not cause the Hyksos not to be relevant. They are relevant whether one is aware or not. However, now that you are aware, you do not deal with the fact that they are, rather you complain about the wait time.

The objective of this topic is to test the claimed veracity of the Bible.

Right now we have what is contained in the Bible reporting on a exodus out of Egypt, and we have very strong evidence outside of the Bible of an exodus out of Egypt, and we have demonstrated there is a possibility that the same event is being described because of the similarities, which even the scholars who insist the Hyksos and Hebrews are not the same are forced to admit, and all you are concerned about is how long you had to wait to become aware that there was indeed an exodus out of Egypt.

The 'Hyksos' were apparently expelled out while the said 'Israelites' were released.

This is why I say this is going to get really intense, and that there are no easy answers. The fact of the matter is, outside the Bible, we are not sure whether the Hyksos left peacefully, or if they were driven out. The Biblical Exodus tells us that the Israelites were allowed to leave but then were pursued. From what I have gathered in this short amount of time is, we can be pretty certain concerning an exodus of a people out of Egypt. We have very good reasons to believe that the Egyptians began to fear these folks once they grew into large numbers. We can be almost certain of this by evidence outside the Bible. What we cannot be certain about as far as the evidence we have outside the Bible, is whether these folks were allowed to leave, or whether they were forced out. Also, from this evidence we have outside the Bible, we cannot be certain if this exodus was the same exodus as recorded in the Bible.

Now as we turn our attention to what we have contained inside the Bible, we can know it reports an exodus out of Egypt. We can know the author reports that the Egyptians began to fear these folks once they grew to be a large number, and we can know the author reports that these folks were allowed to peacefully leave but were later pursued. What we cannot be certain of, is if the exodus we can be certain about out of Egypt, is the same as recorded by the Biblical author. The bottom line is, we can be almost certain there was indeed some sort of exodus out of Egypt, and we do not even need what is contained in the Bible to be certain about this. I can also tell you that we can be certain that the amount of time it took for you and me to be aware of these things, has nothing to do with the fact that we can be almost certain about them.

I guess it would depend on how much leeway one wants to grant, being we are likely talking about a different group of folks

Oh really? Please tell us exactly how you arrived at these odds. After you do that, then please explain what in the world the odds would have to do with it? I can go ahead and tell you that the odds would have nothing whatsoever to do with it being two different folks.

from a differing time, and under a differing set of circumstances.

Exactly what is the time differences, and circumstances?

Depends one which historians/scholars/other you read.

It really does not. Because I am not asking the scholars if they agree that it cannot be determined if the Hyksos and the Israelites would be one and the same. I am asking you. I can tell you that I do not hold an opinion one way or the other as to whether they were the same or not. The question is, has it been determined that the two were not the same. It has nothing to do with the scholarly opinion, but whether the scholars have demonstrated this one way or the other.

A basic lookup yields the following result: "were the Hyksos the expressed Israelites from the exodus?"

While the Hyksos, a Semitic people who ruled parts of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, and the Exodus narrative share some parallels, the Hyksos are not generally considered to be the Israelites from the Exodus story, though some scholars suggest the Exodus narrative may have been influenced by the Hyksos expulsion.

You see, this is not good enough even by your own standards, as you have rightly pointed out that an appeal to the scholarly opinion is a fallacy. The key words above is "generally considered". This is tremendously different than "has been demonstrated to be the case." Moreover, any thinking person at all would be asking the question as to why they would even feel the need to bring this up? They have to bring it up because there are reasons to believe this to be the case, otherwise there is no need to even mention it.

I usually do not consider Wiki, but Otseng uses them a lot. So, when in Rome, do as they do... Here we go: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... onents.%22)

Already read it my friend, and it tells us what I have already said. In other words, we end up in the same place without any sort of way to be able to determine if the Hyksos and the Israelites were the same. It is best to stick to the facts and agree that we can be almost certain of an exodus out of Egypt with evidence outside the Bible. We can be certain a Biblical author reported an exodus out of Egypt. What we cannot be certain of, is whether the exodus we can be almost certain about outside the Bible, would be the same as the exodus recorded by the Biblical author.

Yea, quite funny. Why do you think this is?

I can tell you exactly why this is. It is because I am a normal everyday guy, who had no interest at all in Christianity, who then had children, and realized my children would be exposed to Christianity, which left me no choice but to determine if I could give them an answer one way or the other. I had, and have a full-time job, but I was blessed with a job in which I could spend a great amount of time studying these things. After over 2 years of study concerning these things, I came to realize that although the Old Testament is important, it has no bearing at all upon whether a resurrection took place. Therefore, I have not done a deep dive into the OT in order to know such things.

However, I have enough sense to realize that we have very strong evidence outside of the Bible of an exodus of people out of Egypt. I also have enough sense to know that even the critical scholars who want to convince us the exodus of the Hyksos and the Biblical exodus are not the same, are forced to admit "there are striking similarities". I also have enough sense to know that if you refuse to at the very least acknowledge this to be evidence, then you are simply demonstrating one who would rather believe, what they would rather believe, no matter the evidence.

I mean, this is not that hard to figure out. We have one who was a convinced Christian for decades of their life who now insist there would be no reason involved at all in coming to such conclusions. You tell us you came to such conclusions without the use of the mind. You now want to convince us that the thinking has changed, but you have admitted that the process you use to come to conclusions now is by weighing the odds, and "being hooked on a gut feeling". You do throw inference in the equation, but inference matters not when the odds and being hooked on a feeling should be completely eliminated from the equation since they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Hyksos, and the Israelites are one and the same, or whether a resurrection took place. So then, while the mind has indeed changed, I am really not convinced the thinking is much different at all.

1. No one has done research because they likely never heard of them.

Here is an example of the thinking I am talking about. How in the world could this even matter in the least? If the Hyksos lived in Egypt, and were expelled from Egypt, and no one ever knew this to be the case, this would have no bearing upon the event occurring. But the fact of the matter is, we have very good evidence of an exodus out of Egypt from outside of the Bible, in which even the critical scholars tell us "there are striking similarities" between what we can know about the Hyksos, and the Biblical account. You have to acknowledge this, but you refuse to deal with it, and rather make complaints concerning the time frame it took for you to be informed of this, along with most Christians not being aware of this, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with it in the least, which brings us back to wondering about the thinking process.

2. They have heard of them, researched them, and found the so-called connections lacking.

I'm thinking that the overwhelming majority of these Christians you are referring to have not even heard of the Hyksos. But I can imagine there may be many Christians who have researched the Hyksos and have come to the conclusion the evidence is lacking. What they could not do is to insist that this is not evidence. But the striking thing here is to me, is how in the world you can imagine this would have a thing in the world to do with it, which again brings us back to the thinking process.

Yes, as I told Otseng, anyone can argue anything. Especially with all the search tools we have these days. Hence, I can go on an infinite exchange with a flat-earther, a young-earther, etc.... But I digress...

And here we are back to the thinking process. None of what you say above has anything at all to do with it. You know, I know, and everyone else knows we have very strong evidence of the Hyksos being expelled out of Egypt. You know, I know, and everyone else knows, we have a Biblical account of an exodus out of Egypt. You know, I know, and even the critical scholars know there are striking similarities between the evidence we have outside the Bible, and the Biblical account. You know, I know, and everyone else knows, your comment just above has nothing whatsoever to do with these things we can know.

I guess it depends on what one constitutes as evidence.

Which is exactly what you tend to do most of the time in that if the evidence does not tend to lean in the direction you would like, you simply contend that it does not pass your evidence test, which lends to the idea that we are dealing with one who believes what they would rather believe, and you have already admitted to being the type of person who does this sort of thing, by telling us you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life, when there would be no facts and evidence in support of what you were convinced of, which sort of demonstrates one who believes what it is they rather believe. Let's keep in mind that this is not a personal attack, because I am simply repeating exactly what you have reported to us concerning yourself.

Let's fast-forward a lot here. What is YOUR position here?

I really do not have an opinion, since I have just started to look into this matter. Moreover, when and if I come to some sort of an opinion, I very rarely will give my opinion, because I am the type of person who would rather deal with the facts we can know. With this being the case, there are certain facts we can know concerning the Hyksos, and these facts we can know are extremely relevant to this discussion. However, I can go ahead and tell you that I will never end up on,

a) The Hyksos are likely the expressed Israelites?
b) They are likely not?

Because I clearly understand that whatever one thinks the likelihoods to be, would have nothing whatsoever to do with it, which again brings us back to the thinking process of one who admits to going on the likelihoods, along with what their "gut is telling them".

If you select a), then we can go from there. If not, then it's pointless. I have many points too....

Again, the thinking process! It would not be pointless, in that we have facts we can know, examine, and discuss. One of the facts we can know, is that we have evidence of an exodus out of Egypt which comes to us outside the Biblical account.

You write a lot!

I'm just telling you that this is not a shocking comment at all, coming from one who is under the impression there are easy answers to be had. On the other hand, if one has actually done the study, there is no way such a one could ever come away from such an endeavor being convinced there are easy answers. I can go on to tell you that being a convinced Christian for decades of your life without the use of the mind, to simply having a change of mind, who was convinced the answers were easy when they were a Christian, and now that the mind has changed the answers are just as easy, does not constitute the study I am referring to. Rather, it sort of demonstrates one who has not been involved in much study at all.

I caught some more insults in there

You continue to say this, but you also continue to avoid the question as to how my repeating what you have proudly reported about yourself, can be considered an insult? If you are going to continue to avoid this question, then please do not accuse me of insulting you.

Otseng admits if 'the Exodus' is not a factual and literal event, as told from the Bible, then the entire Bible might as well be mythical as well. What say-you?

I say, we would really need to get to the point of being able to demonstrate this one-way or the other, and until then all we can do is to go with the facts we have. However, I really cannot understand how what an author penned thousands of years earlier, would have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection claims we have? Can you please explain how this would be the case? I mean, how in the world can what an author penned thousands of years earlier, who would not have known the author thousands of years later, and neither of these authors could have possibly known about what is referred to as the Bible, have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the claims of the resurrection? I cannot make this make sense.

[Clownboat]

Until an alternate explanation is presented that is backed with evidence, it's the only explanation on the table. When one is offered, then we can compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

If the exodus story did not take place as told in the Bible, what evidence do you suggest we will find?
If it didn't take place as told, I predict that we will not find any evidence that millions of people wandered the Sinai during the time they were to have been there. Finding evidence in the Sinai would falsify this.
There is also the option that a much smaller event took place that later morphed into what we now read in the Exodus story. Not finding any evidence for millions of people wandering the Sinai would be expected if this is the case and finding evidence in the Sinai could falsify this.

If they actually wandered in the desert for 40 years, should we expect remains to have survived for so long?

Yes. Pottery and graves should remain as well as other artifacts. To date, numerous ancient settlements, fortresses, and other structures have been found in the Sinai.

So, you did not leave it as you did not know the answers, but somehow thought it would be leading to something. What did you expect it would lead to?

The record will show that I did leave it at 'I don't know'. What I expected was an education.

And which part of my response did you consider degrading?

"It's not like the Hyksos were a mythical group of people. Information on them should easily be found by a simple Google search."
No harm was done obviously, I was just surprised by such a response.
Consider this as a reply:
"It's not like evolution is some mythical theory. Information on it should be easily found by a simple Google search".

I don't think it would be necessary to find remains if it's not even reasonable remains should last that long.

This is where we differ. I would expect something if the story took place as told, but perhaps we just haven't found it yet. I certainly don't claim that the Exodus didn't happen, but I do currently find it not likely to have happened as told. For that to be believed, I await evidence..

However, there is evidence of them entering Canaan that matches the Biblical account. We can go through that after the evidence of the Hyksos.

Is that the evidence we have that millions of Israelites wandered the Sinai?

Don't understand your point.

To attempt to clarify. Look at all the evidence that is lacking to suggest that millions of Israelites wandered the Sinai. I wonder if the Hyksos are responsible for all this stuff we don't find? To wonder if the Hyksos are responsible for what hasn't been found, I see as putting the cart in front of the horse. That is all I meant.

I am making a chronological argument about the Exodus by starting with the Israelites entering Egypt. Isn't that where we should be starting? Why skip that and even ask about them crossing the desert?

To each their own I guess. Personally I would start with found observations, like how did all these graves get here or how do we explain all this pottery for example. From there I would form hypothesizes that would explain what we see and attempt to test against them (the bones/pottery suggest 'Israelites' or they don't).

As for the evidence, that's what we're trying to look at now with the Hyksos.

I fully understand that suggesting the Hyksos, is the best we have so far. I wish there were graves or pottery or something more to suggest that the story took place as told and entered this debate in hopes some would be put forth.

[POI]

Okay? So, it has been 22 months and there has been no evidence provided, but now there has, and I am attempting to determine what in the world the amount of time would have to do with it? What is your point?

I already stated my point. You are a smart guy. It would be common knowledge that the expressed folks were "the Hyksos". Why? Because we are talking about a very large claim from the Bible, which requires to be literally and factually true. Otherwise, the entire veracity claim(s) of the Bible are in question. But instead, you are now desperately grasping to this 'possibility' because you were given a lifeline by the owner of this arena. Apparently, he placed forth this argument before I created this topic. 30 pages worth... And yet, not one Christian is using it as "fact." You also realize no evidence leaves you vulnerable. Hence, you are now jumping on the bandwagon. Why? Just like the flat-earther or the young-earther, anyone can argue anything.

Next, why do you refer to it as "being dumped over the fence"?

I already explained, but I'll try again. Otseng provided a link, with 30 pages. This is not a research center, but a debate arena. I asked him to present the best evidence. Simply throwing the term 'Hyksos' over the fence, is not representing your best piece of evidence until he explains WHY they are evidence in the first place. Instead, he wants me to tell him who they are. I'm afraid it is the other way around. I'm not the one who brought them up.

I pretty much demonstrated how the Hyksos are relevant to this conversation in my last post.

Great! Are you now going on record to state you now believe the 'Hyksos' are the expressed Israelites from the Torah? If so, we can discuss, as 'modern scholarship' disagrees and has counter arguments. Otherwise, kool story, as anyone can debate anything. I do not wish to debate someone who is agnostic or on the same side as me, as this is a complete waste!

I had no interest whatsoever in this topic, and my first post here demonstrates that I had nothing to say on the topic. Rather, I read what otseng had to say, and understood it to be relevant, and noticed you were avoiding having to deal with the evidence.

LOL! I guess this depends on what one constitutes as evidence. Aside from the claim, there is no evidence. We have 22+ months of demonstration for this. Since you are a believer, of course you want Otseng's offering to be legit. Hence, the conformation bias. I guess the real question remains, why did you believe in this "Exodus" storyline before Otseng's "Hail Marry" pass into the end zone filled with nothing but defenders?

I then simply communicated to otseng, that there are folks who are not really interested in the evidence.

Afraid of what you may find, or not find, which may then create a cause for pause?

You could of, and should have left it at that, and all would have been fine, but you decided to engage me, and I was forced at that time to look into the evidence myself, and in that short amount of time, I was able to demonstrate that the Hyksos are extremely relevant to this conversation.

Sure, just like the flat-earthers, the young-earthers, and the evolution deniers. I'll address it, if you believe "the Hyksos" are the expressed folks. Let me know?

I can assure you that the Hyksos are indeed relevant even though you had to wait almost 2 years.

Great. Are you convinced they are the expressed group the Bible speaks about? If so, we can exchange. If not, again, ???

it would explain very well why I have never heard of the Hyksos.

Virtually no one has. Likely because it was debunked long ago, by "modern scholarship". And now, just like with the flat-earthers, or the young-earthers, or the evolution deniers, us skeptics are still forced, from time to time, to receive such claims from desperate believers anyhow.

However, even though I have not heard of the Hyksos, it did not take me very long to demonstrate they are indeed relevant to this conversation, and they have been relevant for a very long time, even over these past two years, even though you and I were unaware of the Hyksos. The point is, even if we are unaware does not cause the Hyksos not to be relevant. They are relevant whether one is aware or not. However, now that you are aware, you do not deal with the fact that they are, rather you complain about the wait time.

This is a classic example of conformation bias.

Right now we have what is contained in the Bible reporting on a exodus out of Egypt, and we have very strong evidence outside of the Bible of an exodus out of Egypt, and we have demonstrated there is a possibility that the same event is being described because of the similarities, which even the scholars who insist the Hyksos and Hebrews are not the same are forced to admit, and all you are concerned about is how long you had to wait to become aware that there was indeed an exodus out of Egypt.

As long as you ignore all of "modern scholarship's" counterpoints, yes!

I can imagine there may be many Christians who have researched the Hyksos and have come to the conclusion the evidence is lacking.

Bingo! This is what happens when you are not so heavily invested in a pre-determined necessary outcome.

What they could not do is to insist that this is not evidence.

You most certainly can. Most modern scholars do not see this as evidence at all, because they are not the same group of folks, which makes them entirely irrelevant. Other than to postulate that maybe the Bible writers used them as inspiration to tell a tale - (which never happened to their own people).

And here we are back to the thinking process. None of what you say above has anything at all to do with it. You know, I know, and everyone else knows we have very strong evidence of the Hyksos being expelled out of Egypt. You know, I know, and everyone else knows, we have a Biblical account of an exodus out of Egypt. You know, I know, and even the critical scholars know there are striking similarities between the evidence we have outside the Bible, and the Biblical account. You know, I know, and everyone else knows, your comment just above has nothing whatsoever to do with these things we can know.

See my response directly above.

I really do not have an opinion

WOW! You present all this 'evidence', and yet, you have no opinion... It's a good thing I did not bother countering your point(s). I'll await Otseng, as this is the sword in which he wishes to jump on -- (still alone).

I say, we would really need to get to the point of being able to demonstrate this one-way or the other, and until then all we can do is to go with the facts we have. However, I really cannot understand how what an author penned thousands of years earlier, would have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection claims we have? Can you please explain how this would be the case? I mean, how in the world can what an author penned thousands of years earlier, who would not have known the author thousands of years later, and neither of these authors could have possibly known about what is referred to as the Bible, have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the claims of the resurrection? I cannot make this make sense.

You did not answer my simple question. If the Exodus is myth, does this matter for you? Yes or no? Are you some sort of 'minimal facts' Christian, since you always divert us to the 'resurrection' claim? This is all I want to know, as expressed in question 2 of the OP?

[RBD]

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

OK. "Show us examples of ancient inscriptions being treated uncritically by people qualified to have an opinion."

Everyone is qualified to have an opinion, but no opinion qualifies as proof of anything. Opinion is a matter of faith, not fact. That's why the opinionated are disqualified from the beginning, since they bring their opinions to the table, rather than a sole objective observation of the evidence at hand.

Only objectivity can have a critical analysis, that is set apart from personal opinion. Subjectivity is always uncritical, because it's attached to personal beliefs or unbeliefs.

The ancient record of the Bible is one such historical record, that is treated uncritically by some, due to their own personal issue of unbelief. Some therefore try to say the ancient eyewitness testimony should not even be counted as recorded evidence, much less as accurate testimony. They therefore defacto accuse the eyewitness of giving false evidence. (Which begs the question, how can a witness be giving no evidence and false evidence at the same time...?)

Some even go so far as to try and say, that no archeological evidence for it, is archeological evidence against it...(Once again, a radical self-contradiction spawned by personal unbelief in the ancient eyewitness inscription...)

And so you recognize that there are cases where absence of evidence really is evidence of absence..

Such as here in this wordplay, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as though absence of other evidence nullifies the evidence at hand as being evidence at all...

And I enjoy wordplay too, but keep it logically honest: Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absent evidence. That is self-evident by it's absence. But absence of other evidence does not absent the evidence that is not absent.

What we are finding is that it's the purposed unbelievers that ignore the evidence at hand, and argue only about opinions and matters of faith, which is what they accuse the believers of doing. And they also accuse the believers of having blind faith alone, despite what they call an absence of evidence. While they are the ones with blind disbelief to the evidence at hand, by saying the recorded testimony at hand is no evidence at all...

[POI]

Some even go so far as to try and say, that no archeological evidence for it, is archeological evidence against it...(Once again, a radical self-contradiction spawned by personal unbelief in the ancient eyewitness inscription...)

Then you must reserve any conclusion, and remain completely agnostic, about the Book of Mormon's claim(s) about such said group(s) inhabiting the Americas.

What we are finding is that it's the purposed unbelievers that ignore the evidence at hand,

No, I acknowledged it. The first debate question asks:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? No? Okay. Commence with the slogan, which is all you've got!

and argue only about opinions and matters of faith,

No evidence to corroborate an anonymous claim is not opinion, it's fact. Which is why I continue to ask:

Are you arguing that:

a) we will find 'evidence' someday? Or...
b) we will never find evidence?

And they also accuse the believers of having blind faith alone, despite what they call an absence of evidence.

No more or less than the Mormon who believes the Lamanites inhabited the Americas, as told from a differing dusty ol' book.

[RBD]

The inscribed Epic of Gilgamesh is physical evidence claiming a great flood.

The extant tablets are physical evidence that somebody wrote down a story.

Which is the rebuke to say the Bible has no evidence, since the Bible is evidence of an event, the same as that of Gilgamesh. Someone can argue there is no other evidence to confirm or deny the inscribed evidence given, but it is itself evidence of an event.

The rules of evidence in law and historiography is that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, and secondhand testimony is indirect evidence. The Bible is direct evidence of an eyewitness to a flood over the whole earth, and the epic of Gilgamesh is secondhand indirect evidence of a great by limited flood on the earth.

The Bible is also direct evidence of an eyewitness of Exodus, as well as secondhand indirect evidence repeating the eyewitness. The epic of Gilgamesh only has indirect evidence repeated from an eyewitness. The law of evidence is on the side of the evidence given by the Bible, over that of Gilgamesh's epic. Therefore, the objective critic must favor the Bible's eyewitness account of the flood, rather than that of a secondhand testimony.

That doesn't mean that the epic is false, but only incorrect as compared to the more reliable eyewitness account of the Bible. It can reasonably be argued that Gilgamesh was the Nimrod of the Bible.

It's possible that someone believed the story, but we have better reasons for thinking that it was intended as an allegory or morality play in the form of a legend than as straight history.

Like having opinions, it's always possible to allegorize and symbolize anything. However, if it is written as an historical fact, and the allegory disannuls it as factual, then that is falsifying the factual record into just another fable, and fabulous but unreal legend. Both unbelievers and unbelieving believers alike do so with the Bible, which the Author says is playing false with His factual eyewitness testimony:

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Under the banner of scholarship, they are intellectualizing away the truth of the record, while appearing to be 'intelligent' readers and learners:

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

1 Cor{14:33} For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

So many pseudo-believers make so many fables out of the Bible parts, by symbolizing it's historical accounts into mere myth, that it can be called the Symbol Man's Bible, which is not The Bible at all.

The inscribed Code of Hammurabi is physical evidence claiming law in early Babylon.

Again, we have multiple copies of Hammurabi's code in different formats. The inscribed code doesn't claim anything. It presents a lists of laws. Whether these were intended as practical laws to be enforced, a political document intended to show the fairness of the Babylonian government, or as an open-ended treatise of how law should be practiced is an open question among scholars.

Once again, you're confusing following analysis of what is recorded, with first acknowledging the evidence recorded: The Code of Hammurabi is written evidence of law in ancient Babylon during the reign of Hammurabi. It is like an eyewitness account, and may even be written or dictated by Hammurabi himself.

Whether it's good or bad law is another argument. The same for the world deluge witnessed in Genesis. It is direct evidence of an eyewitness of the while earth flooded at once. Whether it was good or bad is also another argument. We can even say there are two ancient witnesses of the same flood, with the eyewitness confirming the whole earth, and the secondhand witness confirming much of the earth. The indirect evidence of the latter is confirmed and supplemented by the direct evidence of the former...

Saying there is no evidence for Bible claims, is to deny the physical Book exists. If there is no other physical evidence of those claims, does not mean there is no evidence for them: The Bible is recorded evidence.

Sure. People often colloquially claim that very poor evidence for something is no evidence....but you're technically correct: it's evidence.

This is the agreed point, in the context of the lie that the Bible has no evidence, because the Bible is not evidence, then

And it is technically, scientifically, and legally evidence. Eyewitness and indirect witness testimony is evidence entered into the findings of historiography and law. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is the only evidence at hand to be considered. Absence of other evidence is only considered for skeptics that demand other evidence to accept the evidence at hand.

However, en lieu of other contradicting evidence, it's a scientific and legal false accusation, to say the witnesses are giving false evidence,

'Historians consider' is called educated guesswork, which is just as valid as 'scholarly consensus'. I.e. it's only what some scholars believe. Faith, not fact.

Without provable conclusions, the 'educated' faith of scholars is no more valid than that of others, that educate themselves in the same thing.

And this is one of the grand equivocations of Christian apologetics: expert opinions are no better than guesses, so apologetic excuses are on a level playing field with scholarship. It's classic anti-intellectualism: "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

And this is classic bad conclusion by false premise. In science and law, expert opinions may be expertly concluded, but they are never accepted as factual proof. And in fact, experts giving opinions always equivocate as only educated guesses and possibilities, not as fact.

Citing 'expert opinion' along with direct testimony, is supplemental. But expert opinion taken over direct testimony, is pseudo-science and abuse of law. Which is not from objective judgment, but subjectively by personal corruption.

Once again, it's the personal disbelievers that stray from the evidence at hand, and go off into the theoretical realm of opinions and beliefs of 'experts' and consensual scholars, that disregard the evidence at hand, without any evidence to the contrary.

The principle remains the same, that recorded evidence can be believed or not, unless internal or external evidence proves otherwise. In any case, the inscribed record is evidence, whether of historical fact, legend, or mythology...

And if we do away with any sort of critical evaluation of that evidence,

We are establishing critical evaluation of evidence, by doing away with uncritical denial of evidence based upon opinions and beliefs alone, no mater how expertly they try to deny the evidence at hand...

Informed by what? Your argument, the paint with which you're painting yourself into the corner, is that a lack of evidence, even when we would expect it, isn't evidence of anything.

Well, yeah. No evidence is not evidence of anything.

But, if someone expects there to be other evidence, then that which is already given, then that's their expectation alone. Which is perfectly fine for the objective critic. However, to demand such accompanying evidence, in order to acknowledge there is any evidence at all? That's unexpert and unscholarly opinion alone.

My educated faith in the Bible is from Bible evidence, that is not contradicted by any other evidence.

Remember that we got here by you discounting the archaeological evidence that the Exodus didn't happen. Your evidence, such as it is, is your uncritical and unfounded belief that the stories in the Bible represent historical events.

We see here how your conflating analysis of evidence with evidence given, continues to lead to you denying any evidence exists, as though only accompanying evidence is 'evidence'.

That's the only way you can speak of 'archeological evidence' that Exodus didn't happen, and accuse me of discounting it. Where is it? I've been demanding such archeological evidence, since I got lured into this debate with the promise of there being such archeological evidence contrary to Exodus. Either give the archeological contrary evidence, or acknowledge there is no contrary archeological evidence.

In the meantime, my belief in Exodus is by accepting the only direct evidence we have so far: The eyewitness account of one that was there from the beginning: Moses.

I could also say over time, that there is a larger scholarly consensus for it's inerrancy, than against it. But of course, that doesn't prove it's true, but only possibly true.

You can say that all you want, but it's false. For any reasonable definitions of "scholar," "consensus," and "inerrant," the consensus of scholars is that the Bible isn't inerrant.

Scholarly consensus is not defacto unreasonable, just not factual proof. I am a Bible scholar along with others, that do concede it is inerrant. So, we can stack up our quorum of scholars and argue and debate and declare we got spirit, yes we do! But, it still doesn't factually prove anything, except what one chooses to believe about the only evidence at hand: The direct evidence of the eyewitness of Exodus, recorded and preserved exactly as Moses first gave evidence for it in a book.

Exodus is a story of a refrigerator. The Sinai Peninsula is the refrigerator. Archaeologists have found no sign of a massive migration of ancient Israelites in the refrigerator.

They're not in the refrigerator, silly. Their eyewitness record is in the refrigerator. The refrigerator is the perfect record of their Exodus, written both without and within like any well-preserved book:

Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

The first seal is honesty: A simple acknowledgement that it is the direct evidence of eyewitness testimony.

That's not true. We can believe all things, if they are not unproven, but we don't have to...The liberty to believe something, that is not disproven, is not a mandate.

Rational people use the state and quality of evidence to decide which things to believe.

Once again, objective critics acknowledge the only evidence at hand, qualifies as the evidence to analyze.

If you're blindly picking what to believe, then you're probably wrong about a lot of other things, too.

Are you suggesting only picking available evidence to make conclusions from, is blind picking? Do you apply that to all historical evidence, or just that which is recorded on stone or paper? Or, only the evidence given in the Bible?

If you're suggesting that the only possible evidence to pick from, is other evidence than what is already at hand, as though that evidence at hand is no evidence, then you are blindly disbelieving the evidence at hand, as though there is no evidence at all...

Or, if you are saying I only pick what to believe in the Bible, then that's only for the pseudo-believing unbelievers.

[Difflugia]

All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

Show us examples of ancient inscriptions being treated uncritically by people qualified to have an opinion.

Everyone is qualified to have an opinion, but no opinion qualifies as proof of anything.

Then who are these people that "normally presume" that any ancient inscription is true? Historians? Theologians? Random Christians in pews?

If "no opinion qualifies as proof of anything," then what was your goal in claiming that ancient documents "are normally presumed true?" Once again, you're asked to support your claims and once again, you avoid doing so.

What we are finding is that it's the purposed unbelievers that ignore the evidence at hand,

Who's "we?" What evidence are you accusing us of ignoring? So far, the only evidence you've offered is your unsupported assertion that the Bible qualifies as eyewitness testimony and should be presumed true because it's ancient.

From my perspective as an unbeliever, you haven't given me any evidence worth ignoring.

[POI]

The Bible is also direct evidence of an eyewitness of Exodus,

The is the anonymous claim to an event which looks likely not to have happened in reality. As evidence by the fact that this very large claim would leave behind tons of evidence, which would be preserved by the hot dry air. Also, as evidence by the fact that Christians are offering nothing but excuses as to why we find no evidence.

as well as secondhand indirect evidence repeating the eyewitness.

A later book referencing the tale, as told from an older book, is not indirect evidence. It's no evidence.

[RBD]

We have just as much, as RBD would put it, "internal evidence(s)", for the several claims made by the Book of Mormon, verses what we 'have' for the claims from the Bible's account for "an Exodus". I've given these Mormon-based claims in post 391. And yet, somehow, my gut tells me, RBD has flat out rejected those Mormon-based claims, or 'internal evidence(s)',

I only reject them as false, if they contradict the Bible witness. Beginning with the lie, that the book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ says it's just another false gospel about Him, that is also cursed by Him.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

due to not producing any evidence at all to actually substantiate those claims. Hmmm?

Since the author is already proven false by his own title alone, then I am justified in remaining a skeptic about any other of his claims, that the Bible is silent on. I demand additional confirming evidence to that given by J. Smith in the book of Mormon, before I'll believe it.

However, I will say that like Muhammed, I don't doubt Smith also had a visiting angel giving him a book to write. Just not any angel of God, since he lies about being sent by Jesus Christ to give another testament to J. Smith.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

While angels still visit on earth, and some are entertained without even knowing it, not all angels are angels of God, but are fallen angels with Lucifer.

[POI]

I only reject them as false, if they contradict the Bible witness. Beginning with the lie, that the book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ says it's just another false gospel about Him, that is also cursed by Him.

By this rationale, the Orthodox Jew has just as much clout to reject the New Testament, as they do not accept Jesus as the Mesiah due to lack of this/that/other. Ultimately, the Jews accuse the NT of either being a lie or mistaken, just like you now accuse the Book of Mormon.